Way to try to turn it around, PL. I don't think that asking questions about your education qualifies as making assumptions. You, of course, don't have to tell me your educational background. I asked because I absolutely cannot understand where you got these ideas about dispensationalism. I have a few really good friends who are as reformed as you can get, and they don't throw up these straw man attacks that you do at every turn. They can't because they go to a decidedly dispensational school, and if they do, they'll fail!
As for my own education and "tooting my horn", that's funny, because I've not said anything other than that I am in school. Obviously, no one is obligated to tell anyone here anything about themselves, but so that you know, I am currently attending Luther Rice College and Seminary in Lithonia, GA, working on my Bachelor of Arts in Religion. Once I hit 90 hours, I'll begin working on the Master of Arts in Ministry with an emphasis in Christian Studies, probably late next year. From there, I plan on going to Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wakeforest, NC for the M. Div, then from there I'm still up in the air. I've talked to some advisors, and it looks like I'll probably get a Masters in Biblical Studies, emphasis on language, from DTS, then go on to a state sponsored divinity school (Arizona, Vanderbuilt) for a Th.M., then on to Yale, Harvard, or possibly Cambridge or Princeton for a Ph.D. The liberal aspect of those last two degrees will make me much more marketable, especially when I go to Trinity for my last Ph.D.
So, I'll be in for a long time yet, and I've got a ton to learn. I'd say, given how far I have to go, I have very little to brag about!
As for how I understand dispensationalism as well as I do, the majority of my profs are DTS grads. Both of my theology profs are. I understand Covenant Theology as well as I do because I worked in a Korean Presbyterian church for three years under the leadership of two hyper-Calvinists. That led me to some pretty bad conclusions about what they believed (I thought it was the norm!), and I was so incredulous that I talked with others in the church, and associated churches, about the belief system. Since I was in a teaching capacity, I had to be very careful to be sure that I wasn't teaching A) my beliefs that were contrary to what the church taught, or B) things the church believed that were directly contrary to my own.
That was a hard line to walk, but it forced to me to get a really solid grasp on Covenant Theology in general. Do I understand it as well as someone who has a degree from Westminster? Of course not, but then agian, I don't even understand it as well as someone who has come out of DTS! Nor do I understand it as well as David Lee (one of the two I worked under). But, I have a working knowledge that is strong enough to prevent me from creating a straw man of the position. It's actually funny, because the guy I was working directly with, Eddie, is attending Gordon Conwell, and I've had conversations with him in which I'll say something that Reformed Theology teaches, to which I find out that he's just now studying that in his classes . . .
So, education is not an issue, PL. Nice try, though.
As for challenging me on bad theology, you can do it all you want. I don't really care, but we won't have any discussion on your challenges. They'll be falling on deaf ears (or blind eyes?) so to speak. For the sake of those reading, I'll provide references, as I did earlier in this thread, but you and I won't be having any more discussions relating to theology and/or Scripture, except for the paper I'll submit later, and that will be the last one. Again, I'm not wasting my time with someone who isn't going to deal fairly with arguments. Lowly pointed out the same thing, so it isn't just me, PL.
And finally, as for your argument about me not dealing with this post . . . that's funny. You do realize that I haven't debated with you in this thread over the Olivet Discourse, right? The extent of my involvement has been to answer a question raised by Christian2 and a clarification from IRQ. Didn't see your name in that . . .
Am I the keeper of doctrine around here, PL? Of course not. It should be obvious that I am not required to answer every position expounded with which I take exception. I've no interest in this thread, PL, so far as your arguements go, because I don't want to debate it. The fact that you see the church in all of this is expected, and as such, we have absolutely no place to even begin a rational dialogue, which you wouldn't engage in anyway. So, in answer to your "charge", there is no reason for me to answer your exgesis. Now, if we were in a discussion on an issue and you provided an exegesis in support of your position, THEN I would be obligated to answer . . . hey, wait, I have done that. So, I'm still waiting on you . . .
God bless